The area where I live has multiple “galleries”, which are covered pedestrian roads. On OSM, these are marked as pedestrian paths with the
Here’s a (fairly well known) example of such a gallery: on OSM and in streetview.
It is quite hard to get a decent GPS signal inside these tunnels. Furthermore, these tunnels are often used as a passage for commuters or as a shopping mall. Therefore, I’d argue it might be a good idea to avoid adding nodes to streets marked as
building_passage in OSM. This change will hopefully not affect regular pedestrian paths with a short underground section, as nodes would still be present on the above-ground parts of these paths.
Here is another (far less nice) example: OSM, streetview (looking at the entrance from the street).
Sorry for putting this in a separate post. As a new user I am limited to two links per post .
Not sure if this applies here, but walkways inside shopping malls can be tagged indoor=yes, those will be excluded from CS
According to OSM wiki, these building_passage roads don’t count as indoor (they’re meant to pass below the building, without actually entering the building).
I’m not 100% sure what the most appropriate solution is here. Either the items are mislabeled on OSM (for the second example I linked, arguments could be made for both
building_passage), in which case they should be fixed there. Or they are excluded from citystrides, as I proposed.
Or you could just “manually complete” the road/way.
I know this is not very desirable, but if there is not a good OSM solution, maybe manual is more straightforward?
I think it depends. If every
building_passage path is similar to the ones I linked above, I think it makes sense to exclude these from citystrides. If the
building_passage paths near me just happen to be exceptional cases I agree that marking them manually is a better option.
A builing passage shouldbe tagged differently: